Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a landlord. The decision of the District Judge was in favour of the landlord. This was impugned in Writ Petition No. 21134 of 1987; Anil Bhasin v. IX Additional District Judge. The decision of the prescribed authority was also in favour of the landlord. This was challenged in appeal under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before the District Judge. Against the judgment in the writ petition, dated 4 -10 -1988, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. When the matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court the resume of the proceedings are recorded as follows: Court No. 3 Section XI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13722 of 1990 (From the judgment and order, dated 14 -10 -1988 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 21134 of 1987). Anil Bhasin.................Petitioner IXth Addl. Distt. Judge..................Respondents. (With applns. for ex parte stay and exemption) Date: 4 -1 -1989. This matter was called on for hearing today. Quorum: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabasachi MukharjiHon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ranganathan For the petitioner: Mr. Satish Chandra, S. Advocates.Mr. Pramod Swarup, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Manoj Prasad Advocate.
(2.) UPON hearing counsel, the court dismissed the special leave petition, but directed that the order of eviction shall not be executed on or before 30 -6 -1989 from today on the condition that the petitioner files an undertaking in this court within four weeks from today to the following effect: (1) That the petitioner will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 30 -6 -1989. (2) That the petitioner will pay to the respondent arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today. (3) That the petitioner will pay to the respondent futum compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before 10th of every month. (4) That the petitioner will not induct any other person in the suit premises. The court further directed that in default of compliance with any one or more of these conditions or if the undertaking is not filed as required within the stipulated time, the decree shall become executable forthwith. (Sd). Anita Kashyap,Court Master. On the faith that an undertaking had been given at the Bar of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was permitted to continue in occupation of the accommodation until 30th June, 1989. He was given the liberty to reside in the suit premises on an extended time, but was to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord on or before 30th June, 1989, but not later than this date.
(3.) FINDING that the undertaking has not been honoured, the landlord file this contempt petition upon which this court issued notices on 23 -1 -1990.;